Voices » Lee Crocketthttp://voices.nationalgeographic.com
National Geographic BlogTue, 03 Mar 2015 19:59:47 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1The Small Town Boy Who Charted a New Course for Our Oceanshttp://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/18/the-small-town-boy-who-charted-a-new-course-for-our-oceans/
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/18/the-small-town-boy-who-charted-a-new-course-for-our-oceans/#commentsWed, 18 Feb 2015 14:46:09 +0000http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/?p=155419As a North Carolina graduate student, Bill Hogarth remembers fishermen proudly hanging giant marlin high on the wharf at Morehead City so people could admire and photograph the prized catch. But after the crowds lost interest, it was Hogarth’s job to cut down the nearly half-ton behemoths and watch their lifeless bodies float out to sea.

Some 50 years ago, many people saw the ocean’s bounty as limitless. But those images of wasted fish made a lasting impression on Hogarth, who eventually brought a conservation ethic to his role as the country’s head of ocean fisheries under President George W. Bush.

“You could see the impact of the waste. I remember thinking that this couldn’t last,” recalled Hogarth, now 75 and director of the Florida Institute of Oceanography at the University of South Florida in St. Petersburg. I caught up with him recently when I went to Florida to oversee planning for The Pew Charitable Trusts’ ocean conservation work in the Southeast.

Bill Hogarth (right), former head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service, shows off his catch after a 2007 fishing trip in Alaska with then-Senator Ted Stevens. The work of Stevens, who died in 2010, strengthened conservation provisions of the federal fishery law, which is named for him: the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Through my years of environmental conservation work, I’ve seen Hogarth stay true to his mission: helping ensure that the nation has abundant fish for the future. He led efforts in 2006 to make sure fishery managers had deadlines for making plans to end overfishing. He told me he believes his successful push for changes to the nation’s primary fish law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, has put billions of dollars into the economy as dozens of depleted fish populations have recovered.

“I would hate to see Magnuson reopened to weaken the law,” he said of current efforts to do that. “There’s just not enough fish to go around. A lot of people see the ocean as a vast amount of water and think there is no way anyone could catch all those fish. We haven’t done a good job of teaching conservation. People understand conservation rules on land. But when it comes to saltwater, it becomes a different mentality.”

As a young man, Hogarth never dreamed of a career in fish management. He grew up in a Virginia town of 600 residents, raised by his mother and three older sisters after his father died. Young Bill intended to go to medical school. But after working as a scrub nurse and losing interest in his studies, he had a chance encounter with a professor who was studying fish. Like me, he found fish fascinating.

Hogarth meets with Lee Crockett, director of fish policy at The Pew Charitable Trusts, in St. Petersburg, Fla., in January 2015.

Hogarth went on to receive a doctorate in marine biology from North Carolina State University in Raleigh. Except for a brief stint as a grocery store owner, his career path in fish management was straight to the top. He worked 16 years for a North Carolina power company analyzing the impacts of nuclear plant discharges on the marine environment. He quit to head fisheries policy for the state for nine years, and then moved to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service, where I got to know him. Humble yet outgoing, smart and straightforward, he had an ability to bring competing interests to the table—a talent that didn’t go unnoticed. So in 2001 he was tapped by the U.S. secretary of commerce to lead the fisheries service.

“Most of my work had been in the Southeast and on local issues. I wondered if I had the right background. I questioned myself if I could do it and not fail. It was humbling. But I sort of felt I had a good team and I wasn’t in it by myself,” Hogarth told me.

While serving as director of North Carolina’s fish policy in the 1980s, Hogarth (left) spends a day inspecting fish that are collected for study.

His doubts proved unwarranted. His seven years at the helm were marked by many achievements, including the 2006 renewal and overhaul of federal fish law, a dramatic improvement that dictates fishing rules affecting every saltwater angler and commercial fisherman today. It was a hard-fought battle: With Congress at an impasse in the waning days of its session, the renewal almost didn’t happen, especially after Congress demanded certainty that the measure would end overfishing and that depleted fish populations would recover. So Hogarth and others devised a system for reducing fishing rates when species were in trouble. They understood that some economic hardship could follow when fishing restrictions would be needed.

“We were convinced we could get over the short-term pain for long-term gain,” he said, crediting President Bush with backing what had to be done. “He was always very supportive. He was an avid sportsman and didn’t question the conservation regulations. I never got any pushback.”

Today, Hogarth agrees with me that tweaking rules under the existing law—rather than making larger changes to the law itself—can help resolve problems that remain, including getting a better handle on how to manage recreational fishing and how to deal with fish species that are recovering. He pointed to current struggles with the Gulf of Mexico red snapper, which is recovering from years of overfishing. Fish are getting larger, so quotas are met faster. Fishing seasons grow shorter even though the fish population is getting healthier—a conundrum that is hard for people to understand. Hogarth said educating the public and improving information about what fish, and how many, are being caught are challenges for the future.

“People believe we should have all the fish we want but don’t realize we’ll get back to where we were if we don’t protect the spawners that can reproduce and replenish populations,” he said.

Fish management today, Hogarth told me, is complicated by more fishing made easier with better technology—and environmental changes such as warming seas. But he describes one basic tenet that should guide all decisions: “You have to decide early in the game that fish are a public resource and everyone should enjoy the benefits.”

]]>http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/18/the-small-town-boy-who-charted-a-new-course-for-our-oceans/feed/2What’s happened to all the striped bass?http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2015/01/15/whats-happened-to-all-the-striped-bass/
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2015/01/15/whats-happened-to-all-the-striped-bass/#commentsThu, 15 Jan 2015 21:32:13 +0000http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/?p=153516Some people jump out of airplanes or go rock climbing for an exhilarating time.

For me, it’s chasing striped bass—big, powerful, and beautiful. I always feel a rush of excitement as my fishing line goes screaming off the reel once a large bass takes my lure, knowing that while adult bass in the ocean typically weigh from 15 to 30 pounds, they can grow up to 6 feet and 125 pounds. They hit the lure with quick force, fight hard, and can, despite an angler’s best efforts, sometimes escape.

Lee Crockett reels in a striped bass off Montauk, Long Island.

I’m a catch and release fisherman, so the trick is to reel in the fish as quickly as possible so it’s not worn-out and likely to die when—after I admire my catch and maybe take a picture—I return it to the water.

For the past six years I’ve fished for striped bass a few days each fall off Montauk, Long Island, with charter boat Capt. John McMurray, a fellow Coast Guard veteran who is a member of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, which sets fishing policies in federal waters from New York to North Carolina. In the past, McMurray and I caught so many big bass on light tackle—a lightweight rod, reel, and line—that we lost count and returned to the dock exhausted. But in the last couple of years, unfortunately, it’s gotten harder to spot the fish. And on our most recent trip, we could hardly find any. I caught only one.

Lee Crockett poses with his catch—a 15-pound striped bass—before releasing it to swim another day.

This unsettling observation runs parallel to what scientists have found: Striped bass are declining. That’s particularly bad news because this species was once considered the success story for how an acutely depleted fish population could recover from years of overfishing. In the 1980s, the species was in such dire straits that regulators enacted a moratorium on its take along most of the East Coast. Fortunately, the fish rebounded, so that by the mid-1990s, anglers were celebrating a robust population and a return to fishing for a favorite catch.

But we have repeated our past mistakes. Since the mid-2000s, the total amount of striped bass taken exceeded the target catch level, and in six of those years, overfishing occurred—fishing faster than the species could reproduce. The result was predictable.

“There has been a really drastic decline,” McMurray told me on our most recent fishing trip. “Each year it’s gotten a little worse. It’s important to reduce fishing when a fish population gets smaller.”

Regulating the health of fish populations can fall to more than one agency. Currently, the federal government manages recreationally and commercially important fish in federal waters (generally 3 to 200 miles offshore) under the nation’s fish law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. But in some regions of the country, state-run commissions play a separate role in fish management. These commissions, composed of fishermen, state agency representatives, and regional fishing experts, are authorized to oversee some fishing in state waters, which typically extend 3 miles offshore.

One such commission, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, makes fishing rules, including those for striped bass, in state waters along the Eastern Seaboard. In October, after much debate and over opposition from several commission members, the full commission reduced the amount of striped bass that can be killed by 20 to 25 percent, depending upon the location. The commission should be commended, even though such cuts should have happened sooner to prevent the harmful overfishing that damaged the health of this fish population in the first place. It also remains to be seen whether the reductions will be effectively implemented, because the commission gave state fishery officials a good deal of flexibility in creating regulations.

The differences between some rules made by state commissions and those enacted by the federal government can be stark. This disparity is why I worry when some recreational fishing interests say they would like more fish species to be managed under a system similar to the state-operated one used for striped bass. Congress is likely to hear that request when it considers updating federal fishery law this year. The law rightly states that fishery managers must act to protect a species as soon as scientists recognize it’s in trouble and that there should be consequences for exceeding fishing quotas. Because regional commissions are not bound by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, their rules are typically more lenient.

In the case of striped bass, commissioners knew that catch amounts had exceeded target levels. But the commission’s rules didn’t require taking steps to prevent overfishing, so it delayed action for more than two years. In contrast, federal law would have required a faster response, potentially averting the population decline and the stiffer cuts in quotas that subsequently followed.

Thousands of striped bass come to the surface to feed on baitfish off Montauk—a sight less common now, because the striped bass population has declined.

“In the federal system, the law is the law,” McMurray said. “If overfishing occurs, we have to take prompt action.”

Even when commission rules are in place, states are not always required to follow them. The states that make up the Atlantic commission, for example, are legally bound by commission decisions. But in other commissions, individual states can ignore fishing limits that have been set.

This year, as Congress considers updates to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, I hope that members can see a lesson in striped bass. We need to continue to protect our valuable ocean fish under federal rules that have already helped dozens of depleted species start on the road to recovery.

There is no sense in deviating from that course now. Whether it’s striped bass, red snapper, or any other type of fish that anglers like to pursue, we must have rules that make fishing sustainable—or there won’t be enough fish left for us to catch.

This Thanksgiving I’m grateful for one simple act that set my life’s course.

Shortly after high school graduation, I picked up an issue of National Geographic magazine with a story about the Coast Guard. I read about dramatic rescues at sea, about making the Mississippi River safe for ships and barges, and about ships that broke ice to clear a channel into a U.S. base in Antarctica.

It all seemed so glamorous and exciting that the very next day I headed to the local recruiting office. My parents were away on vacation; by the time they returned from their trip, I was signed up for the Coast Guard. Imagine my mother’s shock when she learned that I had made a major life decision based on reading a magazine article.

She calmed down—eventually—and I took to the sea, sometimes sailing for weeks at a time. On these journeys I fell in love with the ocean. I discovered its raw power, the depth of its beauty, and the mysteries of its creatures. And I learned that the sea would be a part of the rest of my life.

Seaman Lee Crockett works on the ammunition lockers aboard the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Vigilant at State Pier in New Bedford, Massachusetts, in 1975. The ship conducted fisheries patrols on Georges Bank.

So in this Thanksgiving season, I’m giving a public thanks to the U.S. Coast Guard for the adventure that began my journey as an ocean steward—from research diver at the University of Connecticut, to congressional committee staffer, to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fish biologist, to marine advocate and head of U.S. fish policy at The Pew Charitable Trusts.

I’m also grateful for the good things that have happened in U.S. ocean conservation in 2014.

* One of the fastest, largest, and most sought after fish in the sea caught a big break. NOAA approved new rules restricting use of long fishing lines baited with hundreds of hooks at the water’s surface, a type of fishing gear that can harm bluefin tuna along the Atlantic Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. The rules also include a new cap on the number of tuna that can be killed incidentally by the gear. Because the Gulf is the only known spawning grounds for the dwindling western Atlantic population of this species, this is a major victory for a fish that can swim as fast as racehorses run, grow to the size of a small car, make transoceanic migrations, dive deeper than 4,000 feet, and live up to 40 years.

Bluefin, however, aren’t the only species that suffer from being caught unintentionally. Many fish and other marine animals are inadvertently hooked or netted, then thrown overboard dead or dying. The tally of this waste: almost a fifth of total fish caught nationwide, amounting to more than 1 billion pounds per year. We need to gather better data on the scope of the problem and find solutions, such as alternative fishing gear that doesn’t snare non-target species.

* More fish populations have been rebuilt to healthy levels. The golden tilefish, Atlantic butterfish, and gag grouper have recovered from chronic overfishing, bringing to 37 the number of populations that have been restored since 2000. We still have a way to go, however. Of the 537 fish populations that federal regulators oversee, 38 are known to still need help to recover from overfishing. But I have high hopes that those fish also will get to healthy levels if we rebuild dwindling species as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act—the primary law governing management of our nation’s ocean fish.

* The public still has ample opportunity to have a say in how fish are managed. The White House finally rejected a rule, originally proposed in the previous administration, that would have limited public participation in decisions about how fishing rules and limits are set and would have changed how environmental studies about fish issues are managed. An alternate plan preserves the public’s ability to engage in the decision-making process and, best of all, affirms the importance of ecological information, such as the cumulative impacts of multiple types of fishing, when federal regulators make decisions. In the coming year, we hope to see these procedures adopted.

* Congress didn’t act on a proposal to weaken fish protection. The bill would have undermined federal requirements to quickly rebuild depleted fish populations. A better solution is to embrace 21st-century technology and ideas to more comprehensively manage our marine resources so that everyone can benefit from abundant fish, seafood, and recreational opportunities.

* Leaders are starting to think big about fish. We’ve spent many years setting fishing rules on a single species at a time – sometimes missing the big picture. But an idea known as “ecosystem-based fisheries management” gained some fresh momentum this year. Instead of focusing on one population at a time when setting fishing rules, this approach considers many factors in the marine environment including the impact of changes in the oceans and the habitat and food needs of fish. For the first time, ecosystem-based fisheries management was on the agenda at a national fish conference in Washington, DC. And a task force comprised of leading scientists from across the country is working to develop a practical blueprint that managers can use to write fishing rules by accounting for the relationships among marine life, humans, and the environment.

Here’s hoping that 2015 makes us even better stewards of our valuable and intriguing oceans. Best wishes to you and your families this holiday season.

]]>http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/11/24/giving-thanks-for-a-life-changing-adventure-and-more/feed/0The Fish That Inspired a Woman to Help Save a Specieshttp://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/10/30/the-fish-that-inspired-a-woman-to-help-save-a-species/
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/10/30/the-fish-that-inspired-a-woman-to-help-save-a-species/#commentsThu, 30 Oct 2014 14:25:16 +0000http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/?p=149294Shana Miller was fresh out of college in 1998 when she came face-to-face with one of the fastest fish in the sea.

She and her friends battled for three hours to haul a 154-pound bluefin tuna aboard their boat off the Maryland coast. And when she finally looked the creature in the eye, she felt something unexpected.

“There was something very personal,” she recalled when she and I talked recently. “I felt it looking at me. It was big, beautiful, fast, and powerful. That experience put me over the edge to want to study bluefin tuna.”

John Jenkins (left) captains a charter boat for Shana Miller and Kevin Weng to tag and release bluefin tuna off Morehead City, North Carolina.

I asked Miller what she did with the fish. It turns out that she and her friends ate it, not realizing then the extent of overfishing that has greatly reduced bluefin populations—to the point that western Atlantic bluefin tuna populations are now just 55 percent of their already depleted 1970 level. But I admire what happened next. Seizing on the passion that took hold that day—she describes herself as the “biggest bluefin fan on the planet”—Miller, now 38 and holder of a master’s degree in marine biology, has become one of the most knowledgeable full-time bluefin conservation advocates I know.

Miller and I are among many people who are fascinated by the legendary fish, although she’s been luckier than I have been in getting close encounters. She and other researchers have discovered that bluefin swim as fast as racehorses run, grow to the size of a small car, make transoceanic migrations, dive deeper than 4,000 feet, and live up to 40 years.

And she and I are among many people celebrating a conservation victory: new fishery management measures that will help the species recover.

After years of debate and study, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) is finalizing restrictions on certain fishing gear that can harm bluefin in two areas covering about 27,000 square miles of the Gulf of Mexico—the only known spawning grounds for the western Atlantic bluefin. The restrictions are expected to go into effect in January, meaning that they will be in place by the peak spawning months of April and May. Gear restrictions also will apply each year from December through April over more than 5,500 square miles off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, where bluefin feed.

Shana Miller examines a bluefin tuna inadvertently killed during a research mission on a longline fishing vessel in the Gulf of Mexico. The bluefin was attacked by a pilot whale while hooked on the line.

“This is a very significant step forward,” said Miller, who works on bluefin tuna issues at The Ocean Foundation and advises me and others at The Pew Charitable Trusts. “If we give bluefin a little bit of a break, they’ll come back.”

The measures will prohibit the use of long fishing lines baited with hundreds of hooks at the water’s surface. These lines, which can extend up to 40 miles, are typically used to catch swordfish and yellowfin tuna—but also often snare and kill “incidental” catch, including bluefin and about 80 other types of marine wildlife, ranging from hammerhead sharks to leatherback turtles. After the new measures are in place, fishermen will still be allowed to fish using alternative gear, known as green sticks and buoy gear (learn more about those here), which lessen incidental catch while minimizing the economic impact of the restrictions on fishermen.

Commercial longline fishermen haven’t been permitted to intentionally catch bluefin in the Gulf since 1982. But there and along the Eastern Seaboard, they’ve been allowed to catch and keep up to three of the fish per trip that were hooked incidentally. The rest of the bluefin caught without being targeted had to be thrown back and were often already dead. Unfortunately, the total amount of bluefin accidentally caught regularly exceeded levels that regulators set for the year—with no real penalties. I’m exceptionally pleased that this will change under the new rules, which include a national cap on surface longline incidental catch of bluefin. Once that cap is reached, all surface longline fishing for swordfish and yellowfin tuna must stop.

As tough as bluefin seem, Miller told me she spied their weakness early in her conservation career. As a graduate student at Stanford University, she was part of a research group that chartered a commercial longline fishing vessel in the Gulf in search of bluefin to tag for study. Even though researchers handled the fish carefully, some of the bluefin they caught didn’t survive—a devastating outcome for people who were trying to save them, not kill them.

Shana Miller holds up squid, one of bluefin tuna’s favorite prey, during a research mission on a longline fishing vessel in the Gulf of Mexico.

The deaths led to an important finding: The cool-water bluefin apparently died of heart attacks after being exposed too long to the warmer Gulf surface water. Trapped on the longlines, they were unable to dive deeper to cool off. It was then that Miller and others realized the true threat that surface longline fishing poses to the species, particularly in the Gulf.

Now, NOAA Fisheries estimates the new measures will reduce the amount of incidental bluefin catch by at least 150,000 pounds nationwide each year—a 35 percent reduction from 2013 levels. And, according to Miller, the news could be even better, because the incidental catch might well be reduced even more.

Under the new measures, fishing boats using surface longlines will be required to keep all dead fish that meet the minimum legal size limit, and those dead fish will be counted against the new incidental bluefin catch cap. The fishing boats also must have video cameras on board to record what’s being caught and discarded.

This system will mean, I believe, that there will finally be an incentive to avoid catching bluefin. Miller, whose experience and vast knowledge of bluefin helped me and other conservationists push for a scientifically sound plan to save them from those longlines, agrees. As she points out, while “conservationists, scientists, and governments have worked really hard to rebuild bluefin tuna for decades,” market forces have pushed in the opposite direction: In Japan, where bluefin are prized for sushi and sashimi, a 300- to 500-pounder can fetch upwards of $10,000, depending upon the quality. “So for everyone trying to help, there have been that many more people making a lot of money catching them. And that, unfortunately, has dictated how they’re managed.”

A bluefin tuna is tagged during a research mission in the Gulf of Mexico.

But as happy as we are with the new fishing guidelines, she knows more needs to be done worldwide.

“If we can rebuild this species, it would be better for ocean ecosystems,” said Miller. “There would be more fish for recreational and commercial fishermen, who could make more money while their take would be sustainable,” she said. “If bluefin recover, it would give everyone working to help this fish a sense of hope for this amazing animal and for the future of all wildlife.”

I couldn’t agree more.

]]>http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/10/30/the-fish-that-inspired-a-woman-to-help-save-a-species/feed/0Congress Needs to Think Big About Fishhttp://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/22/congress-needs-to-think-big-about-fish/
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/22/congress-needs-to-think-big-about-fish/#commentsMon, 22 Sep 2014 22:15:11 +0000http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/?p=145759When you buy a house, do you inspect only the roof? Of course not. You look at the whole structure: the foundation, insulation, plumbing, and many other aspects that indicate the overall condition of a home.

Taking a look at the big picture is wise when buying a house—and equally wise when making many other decisions, including how we conserve our oceans. And it could translate into a huge benefit for fish as well as those who enjoy or depend on them.

Before setting fishing rules, fishery managers consider the health and abundance of a particular fish population, typically one population at a time. Instead, they should take into account not only individual fish populations but also the ecosystems in which they live—the whole house, in other words.

In practice, this would mean that before managers set fishing rules, they would consider where fish live, how their environment affects them, what they eat, what eats them, what unique roles they perform in the oceans, what threats they face from a changing ocean ecosystem, and how fishing affects that environment.

Such an approach, ecosystem-based fisheries management, may sound complex, but there are concrete, cost-effective steps to make it a reality, including conserving habitat where fish spawn and protecting food sources for fish. This holistic approach could help dwindling species recover and boost healthy populations—achievements that can bring economic benefits to fishing businesses and coastal economies.

A rhinoceros auklet with a beak full of sand lance, an important forage fish.

Some of the fisheries management councils are adopting this approach. In Alaska, home to some of our nation’s most prized commercial fisheries, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council tracks trends in the environment to help guide decisions about catch limits. The council also has protected several kinds of prey, or forage fish, the smaller species that provide food for the larger. And it has permanently closed about 1.2 million square miles of ocean bottom to fish trawling and scallop dredging—both of which drag destructive gear along the ocean floor—to help protect habitats that are important to bottom-dwelling species. These and other conservation-minded tactics have helped create some of the most robust and healthy fish populations in U.S. waters.

Farther south, the Pacific Fishery Management Council, which regulates fishing in federal waters along the entire western U.S. coast, recently adopted its first ecosystem plan—a document that spells out how to look at the big picture when managing marine resources.

While some fishery managers already consider the whole rather than just the parts, we need to ensure that all of them do so by making it a requirement in federal law. Now is an opportune time as Congress considers renewing the nation’s primary fish law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Legislators should require policies that protect and restore ocean ecosystems and also specify how ecosystem information can be factored into fisheries management rules and plans.

The law was created nearly 40 years ago, when scientists mostly relied on reported catch from fishermen to draw conclusions about the health and abundance of fish populations. With modern, sophisticated technology, we now know significantly more about fish migration patterns, species health, what affects them, and the roles they play in the ocean.

Seafood enthusiasts, fishing businesses, coastal communities, and anglers will benefit if we can ensure that fishery managers use all the information they have to make smart decisions. We need to remind them of the wisdom of looking at the whole house—not just the roof.

]]>http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/22/congress-needs-to-think-big-about-fish/feed/1The ABCs of Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Part V—‘Starting smart’http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/08/11/the-abcs-of-ecosystem-based-fisheries-management-part-v-starting-smart/
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/08/11/the-abcs-of-ecosystem-based-fisheries-management-part-v-starting-smart/#commentsMon, 11 Aug 2014 18:00:39 +0000http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/?p=141097An old adage popularized by Benjamin Franklin says that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Many of us in the marine conservation community believe that would, indeed, be a good way to manage our nation’s ocean fish. But that’s not happening. Too often, fisheries begin in a new location, or target a new species, without any scientific evaluation of potential adverse effects on the health of the ecosystem. Instead of employing management measures to prevent trouble, we’ve been spending our resources on curing difficulties that might have been averted.

And now, unprecedented shifts in the range and behavior of fish populations because of increasing water temperatures, combined with a growing global demand for seafood, are creating pressure to expand fishing to new geographic areas or to fish that have never been major commercial fishing targets. But if management of fishing in U.S. waters starts only after damage has already been done, we’re ignoring Franklin’s good advice. Without taking strong, proactive steps, we will continue to chase problems rather than prevent them.

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council chose to first collect enough data for sustainable management before allowing any new commercial fishing in U.S. Arctic waters. Congress should promote this scientific approach to ecosystem-based fishery management on a national scale. Credit: U.S. Coast Guard

Congress should address this weakness as it updates the primary law governing management of our nation’s ocean fish—the Magnuson-Stevens Act. While U.S. efforts to curb overfishing and restore depleted fish populations stand as one of the great ocean conservation success stories of the past decade, more can be done to shore up the health of the marine ecosystems that support these fish.

We need a new national policy that guides federal managers to “start smart” by factoring in, up front, all available research on potential damage to marine ecosystems that would occur with new or expanded fishing activities. This would benefit ocean ecosystems as well as the residents of coastal communities who depend economically on a healthy and vibrant ocean.

A great example of starting smart can be seen up north. As the Arctic ice cap melts, it’s opening new places and opportunities to fish commercially. Fortunately, forward-thinking members of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council realized that they should evaluate the related environmental impacts before any new fishing starts. Beginning in 2006, the council hosted many meetings with communities in the region and other engaged stakeholders. Three years later, the council wisely opted to prohibit any new commercial fisheries until it collects enough data to sustainably manage them.

Precautionary action like this will help contribute to more productive ocean ecosystems. Unfortunately, there are no national policies to ensure that this science-based approach is used consistently around the country. Some councils do proactive planning, and others do not.

Evaluating the potential ecological consequences of fishing—as well as a fish population’s abundance level, reproductive capacity, ability to withstand fishing, and role in the food web—in advance of allowing a fishery to start is a common-sense approach that could help identify and mitigate problems before they start. Congressional leaders should take this opportunity to promote this important aspect of ecosystem-based fishery management on a national scale — so that we can apply Franklin’s sage “ounce of prevention” advice to guide informed, proactive fishery management decisions.

]]>http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/08/11/the-abcs-of-ecosystem-based-fisheries-management-part-v-starting-smart/feed/1Building on Successhttp://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/14/building-on-success/
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/14/building-on-success/#commentsMon, 14 Jul 2014 17:18:07 +0000http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/?p=137856In late fall of 2006, Congress came together to strengthen the primary law that governs our nation’s ocean fisheries—the Magnuson-Stevens Act, originally passed in 1976. A push from leaders on both sides of the aisle, combined with strong support from President George W. Bush, helped overcome political differences.

The 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, along with an earlier one in 1996, required an end to overfishing, established clear timelines for rebuilding depleted populations, and required decisions based on science—creating much-needed accountability in the form of annual catch limits.

As a result, our fish stocks are in much better shape today. In fact, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service, since 2000 the number of stocks subject to overfishing has dropped from 72 to 28, while 34 depleted fish populations have been rebuilt.

A juvenile scamp in a deep patch reef.

The current reauthorization bill, H.R. 4742, was introduced by Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) and approved by the committee with no Republicans voting against it and only one Democrat voting for it. Headed to the full House of Representatives for a vote as early as this month, it includes troubling provisions that would:

Exempt many species of fish from current science-based catch limits; and

Undermine the authority of other proven, keystone federal environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act – laws that involve the public in decision-making and have helped restore, conserve, and manage natural resources for decades.

Perhaps most significantly, the bill misses an opportunity to prepare the nation for growing challenges to the health of our oceans. For decades, single-species policy solutions have been used to fight overfishing and rebuild depleted fisheries. This approach makes it difficult to incorporate important new research about how ocean food webs work or how fishing for one species may unintentionally affect others. Accounting for these connections would allow fisheries managers to better prepare and adapt to the changes that are occurring in our oceans.

Instead of weakening the Magnuson-Stevens Act and putting hard-earned progress at risk, Congress should require a transition to ecosystem-based fishery management. That means protecting important habitats, avoiding non-target catch, ensuring that enough forage fish remain in the water to feed larger animals and putting ecosystem planning on the agenda for fisheries managers.

Developing new policy tools to maintain the overall health of marine ecosystems would build on the conservation successes of the act in restoring depleted fish populations. And, according to a number of prominent marine scientists, ecosystem-based fisheries management would also provide federal fisheries managers with more tools to restore ocean ecosystems, making them more resilient to the impact of climate change on U.S. waters.

Policymakers in Washington today may stand divided on party lines over a whole host of issues, but management of our oceans doesn’t need to be one of them. As Congress did in 1996 and again in 2006, it should put partisan differences aside when crafting the next version of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We owe it to our children and grandchildren not only to protect the health of some species of fish, but to ensure the broader health of our oceans. We can do that by taking a comprehensive approach to fisheries management.

On May 29, the House Natural Resources Committee met to refine legislation reauthorizing and amending the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the primary law that governs fishing in U.S. ocean waters. This is vital work: Our oceans are one of our nation’s most valuable natural resources. And congressional leaders should capitalize on this opportunity by adding stronger protections for essential habitat that fish populations need to spawn and grow in a healthy marine ecosystem.

Since the Magnuson-Stevens Act was originally enacted in 1976, scientific research has greatly increased our understanding of how the world’s oceans work. We now also have more accurate information about the effects of human activities on the health of marine ecosystems.

For example, scientists have found that fishing practices such as bottom trawling or dredging can destroy essential, fragile wildlife habitat on the ocean’s floor in a single pass. Research also has demonstrated that industrial pollution and agricultural runoff can damage nearshore and brackish estuarine habitats that serve as important nurseries for countless species of ocean fish. The massive seasonal dead zones documented in the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay are just two examples of how our actions on land can have devastating results in the water.

Adequate amounts of productive habitats are critical to the development of vibrant marine ecosystems capable of supporting healthy fish populations, just as they are for animals on land. Rich collections of deep-sea corals off the coast of Alaska, for example, serve as a safe harbor from harsh ocean currents—providing necessary areas for fish to spawn, feed, and take shelter from predators. These sites are home to an array of marine species—including Pacific ocean perch, rockfish, and crabs. In fact, a study on the linkages between corals and fish populations by the North Pacific Research Board’s Science Program found that “64-72% of commercially important fish species in the Aleutians were associated with corals or sponges.”

Several regional fishery management councils have moved ahead with forward-thinking plans to protect essential fish habitat. For example, in 2005 the North Pacific Fishery Management Council made a landmark decision to safeguard deep-sea corals from destructive bottom trawling in roughly 280,000 square nautical miles of ocean waters around the Aleutian Islands off the Alaskan coast—an area nearly twice the size of California. Yet, despite this step and other proactive regional efforts, national protection of fishery habitat remains uneven.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act was amended in 1996 to require the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service, or NOAA Fisheries, and regional fishery management councils to describe, identify, protect, and enhance essential fish habitats “to the extent practicable.” However, undertaking specific actions to protect habitat, such as banning certain fishing gear types in sensitive areas, can often be deemed “impracticable” by regional officials. Federal fishery managers also have designated large swaths of ocean as essential fish habitat, but they have failed to follow through on protective measures by subsequently deciding that proposed enforcement tools were impracticable because of the size of the designated habitat. This practice must end.

As the legislative process for reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act progresses, congressional leaders should include language to:

Require federal agencies that fund, undertake, or authorize activities affecting the health of marine ecosystems to minimize the activities that have the potential to damage essential fish habitats.

Enhance current legal tools available to federal fisheries managers to protect “habitat areas of particular concern.”

By using the scientific resources available today, it’s possible to design highly targeted policies that balance potential short-term impacts on fishermen with the longer-term goal of creating safe areas for fish to live and spawn. And by establishing national policies that focus on overall health of marine ecosystems, including adequate and robust habitats, Congress can in turn ensure that Americans have plenty of fish to catch, both for food and sport, for decades to come.

According to some estimates, as much as 40 percent of fish caught around the globe is discarded at sea, dead or dying. We can’t afford to continue this wasteful practice. Stopping the unnecessary squandering of nontarget fish in many U.S. fisheries and reducing the needless incidental killing of untold seabirds, whales, and other marine life by indiscriminate fishing gear is central to a new, national approach to ecosystem-based fisheries management.

Fish have few natural refuges from today’s trawlers and industrial fishing fleets. Our modern, high-tech ability to find and catch fish has compounded an age-old problem—the incidental catching and killing of ocean wildlife while fishing for popular sport and commercial species. This waste, also known as bycatch, is widespread in U.S. waters. In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, estimated in 2011 that “17 percent of fish caught commercially [in U.S. waters] were harvested unintentionally.” This has serious economic and ecological consequences.

A sea turtle entangled in a ghost net.

Economically, bycatch equates to lost opportunity—precluding potentially more valuable uses of fishery resources and reducing future productivity by killing juvenile fish before they can mature and reproduce. In a recent review of NOAA bycatch data, researchers at Oceana found that “bycatch in the U.S. could amount to 2 billion pounds every year, equivalent to the entire annual catch of many other fishing nations around the world.”

The ecological costs of bycatch are just as devastating. Off the California coast, for example, gill nets—often as long as a mile—are submerged for hours at a time to catch swordfish and thresher sharks. These nets also entangle and kill other animals the fishermen never intended to catch, including whales, turtles, sharks, dolphins, and many species of fish. In other words, bycatch is bad for those who fish and even worse for the environment.

What has happened to the Atlantic herring fishery is a prime example. This is one of the most important fish in New England’s waters, providing food for predatory bluefin tuna, whales, and seabirds. Atlantic herring has been caught commercially throughout the region for centuries. The rise of modern midwater trawlers, however, has made the problem of bycatch in this fishery worse.

Powerful trawlers, towing nets capable of capturing half a million pounds of sea life in a single pass, are among the largest vessels fishing along the Atlantic Coast. This type of fishing also scoops up a host of other economically and ecologically important species. Independent fishery monitors report that hundreds of tons of young haddock are ensnared in herring nets before they can reach the size that will benefit other fishermen. Data from NOAA records show that over the past two years, the bycatch from trawlers accounted for over 10 percent of all the haddock caught in New England. This is a serious problem for fishermen who depend on sustainable populations of haddock.

Managing fisheries on an ecosystem-wide basis would include meaningful measures to reduce bycatch. To restore and protect ocean ecosystems, federal fisheries managers must proactively adopt management measures to address this pernicious problem. Congress can help these efforts by working with NOAA leaders to create policies that will:

Better track bycatch in U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries.

Require the avoidance of bycatch.

Expand the legal definition of bycatch to include additional ocean wildlife often affected by deadly encounters with fishing gear.

These reforms would provide fishery managers with stronger policies to address bycatch in federal ocean waters. These steps also would support efforts by state and regional officials around the country to rebuild currently depleted species in state waters. In New England alone, millions of taxpayer dollars and countless volunteer hours have gone toward regional efforts to restore habitat for river herring, an effort that is being undermined by ongoing bycatch of the species at sea.

Reducing bycatch must become a key element in our nation’s fishery law if we want to ensure healthy ocean ecosystems and fully realize the economic potential of our commercial and recreational fisheries. The waste of billions of pounds of fish and the indiscriminate killing of thousands of marine mammals, seabirds, and other types of marine wildlife must end.

Most Americans don’t think about fisheries policy when eating fish. But in fact, the supply of popular species such as cod, tuna, and salmon depends very much on how we manage them in the sea. If anglers, chefs, and diners want to continue catching, cooking, and eating fish, we need to change our policies so we can maintain the health of the small fish that nourish the larger ones.

Species such as herring, menhaden, and sardines—commonly known as forage fish—make up the menu for much of the wildlife in our ocean. These schooling fish eat tiny plants and animals near the ocean’s surface. In turn, they are eaten by a host of other animals—including larger fish, seabirds, and whales—making them a vital part of the marine food web. Studies have shown, for example, that forage fish can compose up to 70 percent of a king salmon’s diet.

Fishermen have long appreciated the relationship between forage fish and larger species, but over the past decade a growing body of research into the ecological roles of these small fish has added new scientific insights. This includes perhaps the most comprehensive study to date, conducted by the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force: 13 eminent scientists convened by Stony Brook University’s Institute for Ocean Conservation Science.

The report from the task force’s three-year analysis, released in the spring of 2012, found that “globally, forage fish are twice as valuable in the water as in a net—contributing $11.3 billion by serving as food for other commercially important fish.” So to foster healthy ocean ecosystems where bluefin tuna and other depleted commercial and recreationally important species can thrive, our nation must enact consistent polices to ensure that enough forage fish are left in the water to sustain ocean wildlife.

The Pacific Fishery Management Council, which manages more than 100 species from California to Washington State, has already recognized the importance of forage fish to healthy marine ecosystems. The council voted unanimously in September 2013 to amend existing fishery management plans in order to “prohibit the development of new commercial fisheries” on forage species, such as sand lance and saury, that are not currently managed or monitored. This action builds on proactive steps that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council took in Alaska beginning in the 1990s to protect the food that key commercial species depend on in the region that council oversees.

Much remains to be done. But an impressive coalition of commercial fishermen, sport fishing organizations, ecotourism businesses, conservation groups, and others has come together to ensure that the Pacific Fishery Management Council translates its goals into firm, enforceable policies. Progress in protecting key forage species in other parts of the country, however, has been opposed by certain commercial fishing interests and some state and federal fishery management officials. This jumble of conflicting state and federal policies on forage fish conservation should not continue.

As the Lenfest task force warned in its report, “Conventional management can be risky for forage fish because it does not adequately account for their wide population swings and high catchability. It also fails to capture the critical role of forage fish as food for marine mammals, seabirds, and commercially important fish such as tuna, salmon, and cod.”

So if we want to protect the future of blue marlin, Warsaw grouper, and other depleted species, we need to ensure that these predators have ample forage fish to prey on. In addition to action by the regional fisheries councils, Congress should approve a uniform national approach to fisheries management that takes into account the health of marine ecosystems and the critical interactions between prey and predator species.

Forage fish populations in U.S. waters deserve proactive and consistent management that recognizes their unique role in supporting healthy oceans. This is a fundamental component of an ecosystem-based approach to fishery management. We have the science. Now we need the policies to take better care of these small but hugely important species that knit together the marine food web.